Function  and  Development  of  the 
Marvellous  in  Literature 

Benjamin  P.  Kurtz 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 


FUNCTION  AND  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE 
MARVELLOUS  IN  LITERATURE 


BENJAMIN  P.  KURTZ 


[Reprint  from  the  Univicesitt  or  Califoenia  Cheonicli,  Vol.  X,  No.  4] 


BERKELEY 

THE   UNIVERSITY   PRESS 

1908 


FUNCTION  AND  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  MAR- 
VELLOUS IN  LITERATURE. 


Benjamin  P.  Kurtz. 


While  most  of  the  principles  and  elements  of  literary  art 
enumerated  by  Aristotle  in  his  Poetics  have  received  a  sys- 
tematic and  comparative  illustration  from  the  hands  of  such 
modern  critics  as  Brunetiere,    Texte,    Beljame,  Paris,    and 
Gautier,  there  is  one  important  literary  ingredient,  men- 
tioned repeatedly  in   the   twenty-fourth   and   twenty-fifth 
chapters  of  the  Poetics,  which  has  as  yet  met  with  no  ex- 
ploitation in  the  fields  of  modern  literary  criticism  of  the 
scientific  sort.  This  element,  the  marvellous  (to  Oav^iaarov)^ 
is  admitted  by  Aristotle  into  tragedy,  but  is  held  to  have 
wider  scope  in  the  epic ;  and  his  further  discussion  of  this 
now  neglected  subject  precipitated  the  famous  passage  on 
poetic  truth.     From  that  time  to  this  almost  nothing  of 
comprehensive  scope  or  critical  research  has  been  done  upon 
the  wonderful  by  any  literary  student.       Opinions  of  the 
moment,  to  be  sure,  mere  asides  from  other  investigations, 
have  often  been  thrown  out,  from  Plato  or  Horace  down ; 
and  the  ancients  occasionally  made  collections  of  wonder- 
stories,    such    as    the    famous    pseudo- Aristotelian    HEPI 
^ATMASmN  AKOTSMATHN.    Photius   (Vol.  3,  Col. 
413)  quaintly  notices  one  of  these  collections  as  consisting 
of  four  books,  one  each  on  the  following  subjects:    of  in- 


580869 


credible  fiction,  of  incredible  stories  about  demons,  of  in- 
credible tales  of  souls  appearing  after  death,  of  incredible 
things  of  nature.  But  these  patch-quilts  of  wonder  had  no 
more  purpose  of  literary  criticism  than  did  the  moralistic 
and  philosophic  objections  of  the  Greek  philosophers  who 
descended  upon  Homer  for  employing  incredible  and  im- 
pious tales  about  the  gods.  The  self-conscious  epic  art  of 
the  Italian  Renaissance,  of  Ariosto  and  Tasso,  drew  in  its 
wake  an  acrimonious  and  voluminous  disputation  upon  the 
place  of  the  prodigious  in  epic  composition;  but  the  criti- 
cism was  always  dogmatic,  a  priori  and  partisan — never 
comparative  and  inductive.  Now  and  then,  in  modern  times. 
there  have  appeared  short  essays  upon  the  habits  of  par- 
ticular writers  or  periods  in  dealing  with  the  wonderful, 
such  as  Hazlitt's  essay  upon  witchcraft  in  Shakespeare,  or 
Bodmer's  antiquated  monograph  upon  the  angels  in  Para- 
dise Lost  (Kritische  Abhandlung  von  dem  Wunderbaren  in 
der  Poesie.  Ziirich,  1740).  Fielding,  in  one  of  his  asides 
in  Tom  Jones,  discoursed  wittily  upon  the  proper  use  of 
wonder.  In  1880,  Yardley  put  forward  a  sketchy  essay 
upon  The  Supernatural  in  Romantic  Fiction,  and  in  the 
sixth  volume  of  the  Studien  zur  vergleichenden  lAteratur- 
geschichte  there  is  a  collection  of  medieval  wonders.  A 
classification  of  the  wonders  in  French  literature  of  the  age 
of  Louis  XIV  has  been  made  by  Delaporte  ;^  and,  in  1906,  R. 
Reitzenstein  published  his  Hellenistische  WundererzdJihm- 
gen,  which  involves  a  short  discussion  of  some  aspects  of  the 
Hellenistic  wonder-literature.  None  of  these,  however,  has 
made  a  serious  attempt  to  follow  up  the  subject  with  a 
definite  and  exhaustive  method. 

But  in  one  direction  the  marvellous  has  been  treated 
with  surprising  fullness.  The  students  of  ethnology  and 
folk-lore  have,  with  purposes  other  than  those  of  literary 
criticism,  brought  together  and  partially  classified  a  vast 

1  P.  V.  Delaporte;  Du  Merveilleux  dans  la  Litterature  Fran^aise 
sons  le  Eegne  de  Louis  XIV.     Paris,  1891. 


number  of  marvels  drawn  from  primitive  and  popular  re- 
ligious belief,  custom,  and  superstition.  It  is  unnecessary 
to  cite  here  the  long  roster  of  those  who  in  all  parts  of  the 
learned  world  have  followed  in  the  steps  of  Spencer,  Lord 
Avebury,  Tylor,  and  Frazer.  By  the  systematic  and  de- 
voted efforts  of  this  great  band  of  modern  humanists  there 
has  been  brought  together  a  mass  of  observations  upon,  and 
explanations  of,  the  marvellous  element  in  belief  and  story, 
which,  though  quite  independent  of  any  literary  interpreta- 
tion, nevertheless  is  by  all  odds  the  most  considerable 
achievement  in  the  study  of  the  wonderful,  not  only  since 
the  time  of  Aristotle,  but  in  all  time.  Such  works,  to  men- 
tion only  English  examples,  as  the  Principles  of  Sociology, 
The  Origins  of  Civilization,  Primitive  Culture,  The  Golden 
Bough,  M>i:h,  Ritual  and  Religion,  or  The  Legend  of  Per- 
seus, are  as  monumental  of  the  success  attending  the  ap- 
plication of  the  methods  of  scientific  research  to  spiritual 
matters  as  they  are  unique  in  the  history  of  humanism. 

Dr.  Tylor,  speaking  in  the  light  of  his  long  investiga- 
tions, has  said  in  the  first  volume  of  his  Primitive  Culture 
that  ''little  by  little,  in  what  seemed  the  most  spontaneous 
fiction,  a  more  comprehensive  study  of  the  sources  of  poetry 
and  romance  begins  to  disclose  a  cause  for  each  fancy,  an 
education  that  has  led  up  to  each  train  of  thought,  a  store 
of  inherited  materials  from  out  of  which  each  province  of 
the  poet's  land  has  been  shaped  and  built  over  and  peopled.  '^ 
Than  this  statement,  based  upon  the  scientific  accumulations 
of  Tylor  and  his  fellow-students,  there  could  be  nothing 
more  encouraging  to  the  literaiy  student  who  might  wish 
to  take  up  Aristotle's  observations  and  expand  them  into  a 
coherent  presentation  of  the  function  and  development  of 
the  marvellous  in  literature.  Here,  ready  to  his  hand,  is  a 
body  of  data  and  principles,  which  needs  only  an  applica- 
tion of  the  literary  point  of  view  and  the  addition  of 
further  data  strictly  literary  that  did  not  enter  into  the 
view  of  the  ethnologists,  to  be  reduced  to  a  history  and 


theory  of  the  appearance,  function,  and  development  of 
the  literary  use  of  the  wonderful.  Upon  these  data  as  foun- 
dation may  be  built  such  criticism  of  the  marvellous  as  will 
show  the  relations  between  the  various  cases  or  details  of 
wonder  before  they  were  incorporated  into  literary  begin- 
nings, during  the  processes  of  that  incorporation,  and 
through  the  subsequent  stages  of  literary  development.  By 
following  successively  the  constantly  changing  relations  of 
the  wonder  element  to  other  elements  in  literature,  and  to 
the  general  principles  of  literary  art  and  evolution;  by 
observing  its  concomitant  and  comparative  positions  in  the 
various  literary^  types  at  the  different  periods  of  their  de- 
velopment ;  by  determining  the  evolution  of  particular  mar- 
vels as  they  are  influenced  or  determined  by  parallel  changes 
in  the  technique  and  consciousness  of  the  literary  artist ;  by 
explicating  the  sometimes  obvious,  the  sometimes  subtle,  in- 
fluence of  a  contemporary  philosophical  or  scientific  criti- 
cism of  the  marvellous  upon  the  vitality  and  popularity  of 
wonder  in  purely  literary  usage;  by  generalizations  based 
upon  the  inspiration  offered  by  wonder  to  the  individual 
artist  at  various  stages  of  his  own  or  of  the  race's  develop- 
ment,— by  such  employments  as  these  that  peculiarly  basic 
element  in  literary  interest,  which,  as  Aristotle  racily  ob- 
served, persuades  good  story-tellers,  consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously, to  add  something  wonderful  to  their  recitals,  Avould 
receive  the  consistent  treatment  and  illustration  obviously 
demanded  by  its  prime,  but  slightly  recognized  importance. 

In  the  elaboration  of  such  an  essay,  however,  one  of  the 
first  desiderations  would  fall  within  the  field  of  descriptive 
psychology,  rather  than  within  that  of  ethnolog>^  It  would 
be  necessary  to  come  to  some  understanding,  more  exact 
than  the  popular  view,  of  what  constitutes  wonder  or  mar- 
vel. Unfortunately,  the  psychologists  have  treated  this 
subject  as  unsatisfactorily  as  the  literary  critics  have  treated 
it  on  their  respective  side.  It  becomes  necessary,  therefore, 
for  the  methodical  literary  student  to  invade  the  field  of 


another  specialist,  and  endeavor  as  best  he  may  some  ac- 
count of  the  states  and  processes  of  wonder.  At  this  mo- 
ment only  the  barest  suggestions  of  such  a  technical  study 
can  be  indicated  in  a  non-technical  fashion. 

In  the  first  place,  wonder  is  of  course  a  complex  state 
and  requires  an  analysis  which,  among  other  component 
parts,  will  put  forward  in  their  proper  synthetic  relations 
the  states  (it  is  dangerous  to  call  them  elements)  of  sur- 
prise, astonishment,  curiosity,  belief,  imagination,  fear,  and 
pleasure-pain.  But,  short  of  describing  the  mutual  propor- 
tions in  which  these  possible  ingredients  unite  to  produce 
states  of  wonder,  it  may  be  suggested  that  there  are  four 
characteristics  of  stimulus  which  in  their  variations  account 
for  four  corresponding  variations  in  the  wonder-state  and 
its  allied  states. 

(1)  If  the  stimulus  has  merely  a  sudden  character  (such 
as  the  slamming  of  a  door  while  one  is  reading)  the  response 
is  almost  purely  that  of  motor  surprise,  which  passes  off  in 
a  series  of  diminishing  motor  vibrations.  But  if  the  sur- 
prise is  complicated  by  a  considerable  degree  of  fear  it  may 
pass  into  that  temporary  motor  paralysis  which  often  goes 
by  the  name  of  astonishment — struck  dumb  with  astonish- 
ment, as  the  phrase  has  it.  In  neither  case,  however,  can 
wonder  succeed  unless  the  suddenness  of  the  stimulus  comes 
under  mental  interrogation  as  to  its  cause.  If  curiosity 
finds  itself  baffled  for  an  hypothesis,  then  wonder  as  to  the 
possible  or  probable  cause  may  supervene. 

(2)  If  the  stimulus  has  an  unusual  character  (such  as 
the  appearance  of  a  herd  of  buffalo  in  the  main  street  of 
a  quiet  Xew  England  town ;  or,  to  adapt  the  former  il- 
lustration to  this  case,  the  slamming  of  a  door  in  an  empty 
house  when  there  is  no  wind  and  all  the  doors  are  known 
to  be  shut)  the  very  conceptual  nature  of  such  a  character 
presupposes  a  response  definitely  mental,  whether  attended 
or  unattended  with  motor  disturbances.  The  disadaptation 
of  usual  mental  states  and  habits  by  the  intrusion  of  the 


unusual  may  at  first  result  in  a  mental  surprise,  which,  in 
turn,  passing  to  the  stage  of  interrogative  assimilation  of 
the  new  factor  into  accustomed  ways  of  thinking,  eventuates 
in  a  state  of  curiosity.  If  curiosity  is  baffled  through  a 
failure  in  assimilation,  wonder  results.  Should,  however, 
the  unusual  stimulus  provoke  fear,  the  wonder  state,  up  to 
a  certain  degree  of  fear-intensity,  will  be  heightened.  Be- 
yond that  degree,  fear  usurps  the  entire  attention  and  won- 
der finds  no  place  for  its  activity. 

(3)  If  the  unusual  character  of  the  stimulus  extends  so 
far  as  to  present  to  the  perceiving  mind  in  no  uncertain 
degree  the  conception  of  improbability  (such  as  a  story  of  a 
trip  to  the  moon  and  back;  or  the  story  of  Doctor  Jekyll 
and  Mr.  Hyde)  the  very  improbability  will  tend  to  ab- 
breviate or  even,  in  some  cases,  entirely  abrogate  a  state  of 
curiosity  in  favor  of  one  of  wonder,  providing  always  that 
the  improbability  is  not  so  great  as  to  instantly  destroy  all 
possibility  of  belief.  The  improbable  is  sometimes  ridic- 
ulous; sometimes  it  is  wonderful.  Within  the  bounds  of 
belief  the  very  sense  of  the  improbability  clouds  the  effort 
of  curiosity  to  find  a  sufficient  explanation,  and  gives  in 
advance  a  sense  of  the  abortiveness  in  which  the  effort  must 
end.  Such  a  state  is  distinctively  favorable  to  wonder. 
Most  important,  however,  is  this  fact :  that  where  the  stim- 
ulus is  the  improbable,  it  is  found,  by  the  very  nature  of 
the  case,  and  at  least  nine  times  out  of  ten,  in  the  form  of  a 
story — not  in  the  form  of  an  immediate  first-hand  experi- 
ence. In  this  fact  alone  lies  a  justification  of  the  critical 
study  of  wonder  in  literature. 

(4)  Finally,  if  the  unusual  character  of  the  stimulus  is 
of  such  a  degree  as  to  carry  the  mind  directly  from  the  rule 
of  experience  into  realms  ordinarily  designated  as  the  im- 
possible, there  is  per  se  to  the  skeptical  mind  no  pondering 
of  hypotheses,  and  the  stimulus  (such  as  the  story  of  Poly- 
phemus) awakens  ridicule  rather  than  wonder.  But  if, 
instead  of  a  thoroughgoing  skepticism,  there  is  present  a 


superstitious  inclination  and  a  belief  in  superhuman  powers 
to  whom  the  impossible  is  possible,  then  witches,  ghosts  and 
hobgoblins,  land  of  faery,  Joshua's  ruling  of  the  sun,  Circe's 
magical  pranks,  and  the  descent  of  Orpheus  into  Hades, 
arouse   wonder.     Within   the   realm   of  a  belief   which   is 
wavering  this  way  and  that  in  uncertain  fascination  with 
these  marvels,  wonder  is  supreme.     This  is  its  own  chief 
realm — the  realm  of  scop  and  troubadour.     Its  outposts  are 
the  improbable,  but  its  citadel,  to  express  the  matter  in  a 
further  figure,  is  the  impossible.     From  one  to  the  other 
wonder  rises  by  leaps  and  bounds  until,  in  its  full  regnancy. 
we  behold  the  dead  risen  to  life,  time  turned  backward,  and 
every  corner  of  the  world  filled  with  magicians  and  their 
familiars.     Furthermore,  by  this  very  rise  out  of  reality 
into  the  impossible,  imagination  comes  necessarily  to  the 
front  in  the  wonder-complex  as  well  as  in  the  wonder-tale. 
Upon  these  two,  stimulus  and  reaction,  it  exerts  a  circular- 
like influence,  so  that  the  stimulus  heightens  the  reaction,, 
and  the  reaction  heightens  the  stimulus,  only  to  be  itself  in- 
creased again  in  turn. — and  so  on.     In   a  word,  wonder 
grows  with  the  tale  and  the  tale  grows  with  the  wonder.— 
Again,  it  is  through  imagination  that  we  still  wonder  at 
stories  of  the  impossible  even  after  we  have  learned  the 
unreality  of  their  pretensions.     We   give   an  imaginative 
consent ;  and  putting  aside  prosaic  reality  we  lose  ourselves 
in  the  mazes  of  poetic   adventure.— Lastly,  it  is  ob\4ous 
enough,  and  a  fact  that  cannot  be  insisted  upon  too  strongly, 
that  the  very  passing  out  of  fact,  the  very  escape  from 
experential  h^T)othesis,  is  what  throws  the  marvellous  into 
the  arms  of  literature.     The  primitive  and  the  troubadour 
cannot  corporeally  present  their  impossibilities;  they  can 
only  sing  of  them.     Only  in  literature,  again,  that  home 
of  poetic  unrealities,  can  the  sophisticated  reader,  escaping 
fact,  preserve  his  ideal  standard  of  possibility.     Thus  both 
the  two,  superstition  and  sophistication,  find  their  marvels 
in  a  telliiig,  in  literature.     This  consanguinity  of  wonder 


10 

and  literature  is  in  itself  a  sufficient  philosophical  reason 
for  undertaking  an  inquiry  into  their  mutual  relations  dur- 
ing their  respective  courses  of  development. 

These  four  variations  in  stimulus  reveal  an  ascending 
order — from  the  sudden  to  the  unusual,  thence  to  the  im- 
probably unusual,  and,  lastly,  to  the  impossibly  unusual. 
In  the  rising  plane  of  wonder-states  so  established  it  would 
be  very  convenient  if  we  could  draw  a  dividing  line  through 
the  middle  and  call  all  states  and  stimuli  belonging  to  the 
lower,  the  sudden  and  unusual  classes,  wonderful;  and  all 
states  and  stimuli  belonging  to  the  higher,  the  improbable 
and  impossible,  marvellous.  For  such  a  technical  limitation 
there  is  some  warrant  in  popular  usage.  We  pretty  com- 
monly feel  that  the  Latin  and  more  learned  v^^ord,  here,  as 
in  other  cases,  possesses  a  superior  dignity  and  impressive- 
ness.  The  marvellous  is  felt,  in  general  usage,  to  be  a  bit 
more  wonderful  than  the  wonderful.  The  lower  stimuli 
and  states,  where  the  wonder  is  of  a  minor  sort  and  is  con- 
cerned only  with  the  suddenness  or  unusualness  of  things, 
and  where  it  is  so  closely  related  to  the  matter  of  surprise 
and  curiosity,  might  therefore  be  well  distinguished  by  the 
weaker  word,  wonderful.  Thus  would  be  designated  all 
those  common  wonder-tricks  of  the  story-teller  by  which  he 
raises  the  interest  and  suspense  of  his  audience, — such  as 
the  employment  of  surprise,  leading  to  our  wonder  at  the 
suddenness  or  unusualness  of  its  nature;  or  the  exaggera- 
tion of  situation  and  character  until  we  wonder  at  the  beauty 
of  the  one  or  the  heroism  of  the  other.  But  where  the  real 
marvels  of  the  improbable  and  impossible  come  in,  when 
Merlin  and  Excalibur  and  IMorgan  Le  Fay  appear,  let  us 
drop  the  word  wonderful  and  begin  to  speak  of  the  mar- 
vellous.— The  complete  discussion  of  the  problem  of  the 
wonderful  in  literature  must  of  course  take  into  view  both 
of  these  categories,  and  the  relation  of  that  wonder  which 
is  part  of  the  very  warp  and  woof  of  the  story-teller's  art, 


11 


to  those  marvels  which  at  times  he  adds  to  his  tale,  or  takes 
for  his  subject,  must  be  carefully  determined.  But  the 
former  may  be  treated  separately  in  actual  study  because 
it  is  so  much  the  art  of  composition,  and,  as  such,  presents 
that  division  of  our  problem  which  demands  a  psychological 
analysis  of  the  reader's  attention  and  interest  as  stimulated 
by  surprise  and  wonder,  rather  than  an  historical  research 
into  the  literary  use  of  particular  marvels.  In  the  rest  of 
this  note,  therefore,  the  historical  problems  of  particular 
marvels  in  their  relations  to  literary  usage  and  develop- 
ment will  alone  be  considered. 

After  a  preliminary  description  of  the  complex  states  of 
wonder,  and  the  consequent  definition  and  technical  limita- 
tion of  terms,  the  student  should  secure  the  orientation  of 
the  subject  by  tracing  in  detail  the  histor\^  of  what  literary 
criticism  has  had  to  say  on  the  use  of  the  marvellous.  Thus 
the  warrant  in  previoiLS  criticism  for  the  present  under- 
taking may  be  determined,  while  at  the  same  time  the  vari- 
ous moments  and  characters  in  the  development  of  the 
critical  attitude,  themselves  considered  as  stages  in  the  de- 
velopment of  the  marvellous  in  literature,  may  be  revealed. 
As  an  example  of  such  a  review  the  results  of  an  inquiry 
into  the  rise  and  evolution  of  Greek  literary  criticism  upon 
the  subject  may  be  cited.-  In  the  following  eight  points, 
under  which  the  results  are  summarized,  it  becomes  clear 
that  the  desired  warrant  may  well  be  taken  to  lie  in  the 
very  rise  of  literary  criticism  itself  from  the  presence  of 
the  marvellous  in  literature.  The  last  point  distinctly 
characterizes  the  moments  of  development. 

(1)  Greek  criticism  of  the  marvellous  is  for  the  most 
part  an  undifferentiated  element  in  Greek  criticism  of  the 
fictitious  in  the  poets.  In  most  of  this  criticism  there  seems 
little  or  no  change  of  emphasis  when  the  illustrations  pass 
from  the  minor  aspects  of  fiction  to  the  decidedly  marvel- 


-  The  citation  is  drawn  from  a  more  extended  essay  in  course  of 
preparation. 


12 


lous.  Both  are  criticized  in  like  fashion  in  the  same  breath. 
In  some  cases,  however,  notably  in  Aristotle  and  Plutarch, 
the  primary  reference  seems  to  be  to  the  distinctly  pro- 
digious. 

(2)  Greek  criticism  of  the  fictitious  arises  through  a 
criticism  of  Greek  mythology.  This  mj^th-criticism  begins 
with  a  moral  expostulation  with  the  impieties  and  impro- 
prieties of  many  of  the  marvellous  details  of  the  god-stories, 
extends  to  a  moral  attack  upon  the  fiction  of  mytholog^^  and 
of  the  poets  in  general,  and  is  given  something  of  an  econ- 
omic aspect  by  Plato,  who  is  also  the  chief  supporter  of  its 
ethical  character.  This  criticism  is  delivered  by  the  phil- 
osophers, historians,  logographers,  and  in  less  degree  by 
some  of  the  poets  themselves. 

(3)  Various  solutions  are  offered  of  the  difficulties  and 
perplexities  raised  by  the  impious  and  fictitious  (marvel- 
lous) elements  in  mythology.  Rationalization,  allegory, 
euphemerism,  are  broached;  they  are  all  philosophical  and 
do  not  recognize  the  problem  in  any  other  light  than  that  of 
philosophy  and  religion. 

(4)  Inasmuch  as  the  moral  criticism  and  the  philosoph- 
ical solutions  are  necessarily  based  upon  Homer  and  Hesiod. 
these  poets  themselves,  and,  by  analogy,  all  poets,  are  cen- 
sured and  censored.  Thus  a  criticism  of  poetry,  that  is  to 
say,  literary  criticism  itself,  begins  to  develop  out  of  the 
ethical  criticism  of  marvel  and  fiction.  But  so  long  as  the 
ethical  preoccupation  continues  literary  criticism  does  not 
realize  its  own  separate  ends. 

(5)  At  last,  with  Aristotle,  there  develops  a  real  literary 
criticism  which  is  divorced  from  moral  philosophy.  This 
new  criticism,  in  turn,  attacks  the  problem  of  fiction,  and 
especially  the  marvellous  in  fiction,  as  a  purely  literary 
problem.  An  aesthetic  has  succeeded  the  ethical  outlook. 
Thus  is  developed  the  theory  of  poetic  truth,  under  which 
the  marvel  assumes  its  proper  place. 

(6)  The  successors  of  Aristotle  mix  the  real  literary 


13 

criticism  he  established  with  the  older  moral  expostulation 
and  interpretation.  Plutarch  is  the  most  important  name 
after  Aristotle. 

(7)  Throughout  the  entire  course  of  critical  commen- 
tary^ run  certain  minor  doctrines,  which,  by  extenuating  the 
mar^^el  for  the  literary  purposes  of  beauty  and  force,  eon- 
tribute  to  the  aesthetic  liberation  of  the  wonderful. 

(8)  Finally,  it  may  be  remarked  that  these  facts  con- 
cerning the  development  of  a  literary  criticism  of  the  mar- 
vellous, illustrate  at  the  same  time  a  stage  in  the  history  of 
the  marvellous.  To  summarize  that  stage  would  be  equiv- 
alent to  repeating  the  details  of  the  rise  of  that  new  Greek 
consciousness  by  which  the  marvels  of  a  believed  religion 
passed  through  the  transitional  epoch  of  ethical  distrust  and 
criticism  to  the  condition  of  accepted  aesthetic  illusion. 
Literature  then  inherited  the  marvellous  a  second  time,— 
not,  as  at  first,  from  religious  faith,  but  from  an  aesthetic 
reconciliation. 

It  is  at  once  evident  from  these  considerations  that  the 

marvellous  will  have  found  its  place  in  literature,  and  have 

thriven  there   under  the   fostering   guidance   of   religious 

faith  and  superstition,  long  before  it  comes  to  enter  upon 

its  aesthetic  development  under  the  tutelage  of  a  properly 

emancipated   literary   criticism.        The   discussion   of   that 

earlier  stage  of  implicit  belief  brings  the  inquiry  to  the  point 

where  the  data  of  the  ethnologist  and  student  of  folk-lore 

become  available.    The  relations  between  literature,  religion, 

and  the  mar^^ellous  must  be  contemplated  in  their  simplest 

possible  manifestations,  that  is  to  say,  in  their  primitive 

appearances.     One  must  even  go  back  of  literar^^  beginnings 

and  endeavor  to  determine  what  of  marvel  there  is  in  that 

primitive  fund  of  savage  custom  and  belief  out  of  which  the 

tale  and  the  subsequent  forms  of  the  tale  develop. 

But  in  turning  to  the  beginnings  of  the  marvel  in  such 
primitive  cultured  subjective  difficulty  is  encountered. 
There  will  be  no  difficulty  in   collecting  cases  that  to   a 


14 


modern,  sophisticated  standard  of  the  usual  and  possible 
will  seem  marvellous :  but  were  these  things — the  control  of 
sun  and  wind  and  rain,  the  magic  pointing-stick,  the  world 
of  spirits  or  ghosts — were  these  thing's  marvellous,  or  even 
wonderful,  to  the  early  mind  ?     The  answer,  however,  is  not 
as  difficult  as  would  at  first  blush  appear.     The  description 
of  the  state  of  wonder  will  have  put  into  our  hands  a  very 
real  method  of  measurement  in  this  subjective  puzzle ;  and 
we  shall  be  able  to  scrutinize  any  case  of  supposed  primitive 
marvel  with  such  aids  for  determining  its  original  marvel- 
value  as  these:    to  the  mind  of  the  savage  does  such  or 
such  a  case  involve  any  unusual  power,  anything  of  in- 
explicable suddenness,  mysterious  rarity,  or  impossibility; 
what  amount  of  belief,  fear,  credulity,  or  imagination  does 
it  call  forth ;  is  it,  on  the  other  hand,  a  usual  occurrence,  a 
matter  of  custom,  or  a  habit  belonging  to  each  individual? 
By  such  questions  as  these  the  mental  status  of  marvels 
in  their  primitive  beginnings  may  be  established  with  a  fair 
approximation  to  exactness.       I  cannot  conceive  that  this 
subjective  side  of  the  problem  can  be  put  forward  as  a 
demurrer  to  its  value  or  practicability  by  those  who  have 
themselves  indulged  in  researches  upon  the  tragic,  comic, 
satiric,  beautiful,  and  the  like,  in  literature ;  or  by  those  who 
have  studied  the  origins  and  development  of  art  and  belief. 
Now,  in  view  of  the  principles  of  wonder  already  laid 
down,  there  are  certain  remarkably  apposite  observations  to 
be  made  upon  the  character  of  primitive  customs  and  be- 
liefs.    In  the  first  place,  there  is  an  entire  series  of  condi- 
tions which  make  directly  against  the  marvellous.     Primi- 
tive mind  has  no  conception  of  unexceptional  regularity. 
Perceptions  of  the  unusual  it  certainly  experiences,  but  that 
conscious  concept  of  unexceptional  regularity  which  mag- 
nifies the  unusual  into  a  marvel  through  a  recognition  of 
its  improbability  or    impossibility,    it    does    not    possess. 
Furthermore,  all  rarities  in  perceptional  experience  are  im- 
mediately attributed  to  agencies  of  practically  unlimited 


15 


poTver.  spirits  or  magicians,  both  of  which  are  regarded  as 
indubitable  matters  of  fact.     Consequently  no  impossibility 
is  po.ssible  to  primitive  consciousness.     Therefore,  no  sense 
of  the  truly  marvellous  can  be  present. — Again,  the  curios- 
ity of  the  primitive  is  not  such  as  to  support  a  faculty  of 
marvelling.  Outside  of  a  mere  sensitiveness  to  novel  objects 
as  such,  which  expresses  itself  in  stupid  staring  and  mouth- 
ing, or  aimless  stroking  and  feeling,  the  curiosity  of  the 
primitive  extends  but  indefinitely.    Reflective  and  discrim- 
inating character  it  passesses  almost  not  at  all :  for  the  ques- 
tion of  the  savage,  like  that  of  the  child,  is  satisfied  with  the 
first  answer  that  comes  to  mind,  as  Dr.  Lang  is  at  pains  to 
point  out,^  and  that  answer  is  the  answer  of  imagination.   In 
the  mind  of  the  savage  imagination  takes  the  place  of  reflec- 
tion to  a  veiy  great  degree.      A  creative  activity  of  mind. 
rather  than  a  critical  examination,  is  what  constitutes  primi- 
tive reflection,  and  makes  of  primitive  science  a  realm  of 
fairy-stories.     But  such  a  simple,  idle,  unreflective  curiosity 
gives  nothing  of  that  baffling  of  hypothesis  which  makes 
for  maiwelling.       Thus.  too.  the  imaginative  activity  itself 
eventuates   in    absolute    belief,    rather    than    in    wonder. 
Living  in  a  narrow  consciousness,  where  the  fujictions  of 
association  completely  dominate  the  mind,  the  inner  pres- 
entations of  his  imagination  are  received  by  the  savage  with 
the  same  feeling  of  reality  with  which  he  greets  the  objects 
in  his  external  world.     "Beholding  the  reflection  of  his  own 
mind  like  a  child  looking  at  itself  in  the  glass,  he  hujnbly 
receives  the  teaching  of  his  second  self." — Finally,  magic, 
so  far  from  being  wonderful,  is  the  primitive's  science,  and 
his  implicit  belief  in  it  is  as  destructive  to  the  marvellous  in 
magic  as  the  implicitness  of  his  belief  in  spirits  Ls  incom- 
patable  with  the  marvellous  in  spiritism  or  animism. 

In  the  second  place,  it  may  be  observed  that,  although 
the  matters  so  far  mentioned  are  inimical  to  marvel,  there 
are  nevertheless  already  present,  even  at  this  stage,  certain 


Lang:   Myth,  Eitual,  and  Eeligion:  I,  51. 


16 


tendencies  which  eventually  must  develop  into  wonder.  A 
necessary  prerequisite  for  the  development  of  the  wonderful 
and  the  marvellous  from  these  primitive  conditions  is  a  cer- 
tain specialization  and  uniqueness  here  and  there  in  the 
midst  of  common  and  universal  conditions,  a  separating 
and  seclusive  tendency  by  which  the  individuality  that  be- 
longs to  rarity  and  the  unusual,  may  grow  up  in  the  midst 
of  the  communal  character  of  primitive  life  and  belief.  It 
is  the  particular,  the  glaringly  personal,  the  discrete  fruit 
of  exaggerated  specialties,  that  is  needed  as  much  for  the 
production  of  real  wonder  and  marvel  as  it  is  for  the 
economic  and  social  advance  of  horde  or  clan.  Now,  such 
specializing,  seclusive  tendencies  appear  in  various  ways. 
They  appear  in  the  development  of  separate,  overlording 
deities  out  of  the  communal  mass  of  spirits.  Great,  par- 
ticular and  individual  spirits,  through  their  awfulness  as 
well  as  through  their  uniqueness,  raise  the  heart  in  wonder ; 
and  the  close  corporation  of  priests  systematically  elevates 
its  unusual  sanctity  for  selfish  ends.  The  same  characteris- 
tic tendency  appears  in  the  development  of  the  magician 
into  a  special  esoteric  office,  into  w^hich  induction  is  a  mys- 
terious and  dread  affair.  The  professional  magician,  for 
the  better  support  of  his  rare  dignity,  gathers  his  powers 
about  him  with  ever  increasing  airs  of  secrecy;  and  by  his 
playing  upon  the  superstitious  credulity  of  his  audience 
magic  itself  tends  to  become  ''magical."  Taboo  is  another 
example  of  the  segregating  tendency,  and  its  wide  diffusion 
lends  importance  to  these  foundations  of  the  wondering 
faculty.  Finally,  the  universal  inclination  to  exaggerate 
in  telling  a  tale  must  be  taken  as  a  perpetually  present 
aspect  of  the  particularizing  tendency.  Indeed  this  is  the 
mental  factor  concerned  in  the  elevation  of  gods,  priests 
and  magicians,  and  the  neuropathic  experiences  of  adepts, 
to  an  impressive  importance  above  the  ordinary  and  com- 
monplace. These  are  all  children  of  exaggeration.  Ex- 
aggeration has  lifted  them  into  notability ;  exaggeration  has 


17 


crowned  priests  and  endowed  magicians;  has  magnified  the 
gods,  and  intensified  fits  of  ecstacy,  and  elaborated  the  realm 
of  taboo.  It  has  been  the  more  or  less  unconscious  creator 
of  wonderful  beliefs  and  forms  and  offices.  It  does  not  stop 
there.  It  finds  further  emplo^onent  in  the  common,  every- 
day practice  of  talking  and  telling  and  recounting  the  mul- 
titude of  passing  and  past  experiences.  And  into  the  tale 
are  woven  the  wonder-stock  of  custom  and  belief,  of  god 
and  priest,  of  magician  and  the  "magical,"  of  trance  and 
vision ;  by  exaggeration  in  the  tale  these  all  receive  a  par- 
ticularity of  unusualness  that  transcends  experience  beyond 
the  avarice  of  the  magician's  wildest  pretensions.  Exag- 
geration is  the  first  door  opening  towards  that  ideal  realm 
of  the  marvellous,  imaginative  literature.  It  may  be  said 
to  be  the  gate-way  of  wonder  into  literature.  As  in  the 
history  of  criticism  the  marvellous  was  seen  to  be  closely 
inter-twined  with  the  beginning's  of  that  discipline,  so  here, 
with  the  faint  beginnings  of  narrative  literature  in  the 
primitive  tale,  wonder  and  marvel  are  woven  into  the  fabric 
of  the  tale  by  the  very  exaggerating  force  which  contributes 
so  largely  to  their  actual  genesis.  . 

Thus  an  examination  of  the  forces  in  primitive  custom 
and  belief  would  reveal  more  or  less  clearly  two  tendencies 
— one  making  against  wonder,  the  other  for  it — which  run 
through  these  primitive  affairs  and  mental  attitudes.  The 
more  primitive  the  people,  the  greater  the  former  ten- 
dency ;  the  less  primitive,  the  greater  the  latter.  The  just- 
ness of  these  observations  might  well  be  illustrated  by  a 
study  of  the  Central  Australian  tribes  which  have  been 
described  by  Howitt,  and  by  Spencer  and  Gillen.  It  would 
not  be  difficult  to  detect  among  those  peoples  cases  to  sup- 
port our  general  observation  that  many  a  marvel-element, 
recognized  as  such  to-day,  was  plain  matter-of-fact  to  the 
savage.  Among  them,  indeed,  there  is  to  be  met  no  con- 
ception of  an  unexceptional  regularity ;  spirits  of  ancestors 
are  as  common  as  men  and  women,  or  dogs  and  trees ;  their 


18 

curiosity  passes  into  a  crude  imagination,  severely  dom- 
inated by  a  narrow  field  of  consciousness  and  the  materials 
of  the  past :  magic  is  their  ' '  science. ' '  practised,  to  a  certain 
extent,  by  everyone.  In  a  word,  as  being  among  the  lowest 
of  races,  these  Australian  tribes  represent  in  their  greatest 
observable  force  the  acti\dty  of  all  those  tendencies  which 
make  against  the  marvel  in  primitive  conditions.  And  yet. 
nevertheless,  the  contrary  tendencies  are  also  operative. 
The  totemic  ancestors,  for  instance,  are  unique  as  compared 
with  the  crowd  of  spirit-individuals  they  were  in  the  habit 
of  leaving  at  various  places ;  and  though  in  most  cases  they 
are  little  more  than  mere  names,  yet  their  powers  are  ex- 
traordinary as  compared  with  those  of  their  descendants. 
Moreover,  there  are  certain  special  spirits  possessing  vari- 
ous, particular  powers,  who  go  by  different  names,  such  as 
the  two  Puntidirs,  the  Iruntarinia,  and  the  father  and  son 
who  are  called  respectively  Mundadji  and  Munkaninji. 
Mungan,  Xurrundere,  Baiame.  and  Daramulum,  whom  Dr. 
Lang  would  call  All-Fathers,  are  other  specializations  which 
illustrate  the  tendency  that  must  eventually  make  for 
wonder  and  awe.  Again,  the  magician  reigns  supreme. 
His  power  is  carefulh^  segregated  from  the  common  magic, 
and  his  office  mightily  hedged  with  mysterv^  The  article  by 
]\r.  IMauss  upon  this  very  subject  may  be  cited  as  ample 
authority.^  The  muimneries  and  mystifications,  all  quite 
obvious  and  conscious  deceptions,  with  which  the  magicians 
heighten  their  office  in  the  public  regard,  are  further  proofs 
of  the  strong  influence  towards  the  wonderful  offered  by 
these  characters. 

Corresponding  to  these  two  tendencies,  two  sorts  of  tales 
may  be  noticed  in  the  collections  made  by  Spencer  and 
Gillen :  first,  the  majority  of  the  stories  are  of  a  strictly 
aitiological  character,  mere  unelaborated  answers  to  ' '  scien- 
tific" questions,  where  the  totemic  ancestor  is  hardly  more 

4  M.   Mauss:    L'Origine  des  Pouvoirs  Magiques  dans  les  Societes 
Australiennes.     Paris,  1904. 


19 


than  a  name ;  second,  there  are  a  few  stories,  such  as  that  of 
Pittongii,  the  Flying-fox  :^Ian,^  where  exaggeration  has  en- 
tered into  the  aitiological  tale,  magnified  the  ancestor  to 
somewhat  heroic  proportions,  and  carried  the  aitiological 
material  a  step  further,  out  of  a  purely  "scientific,"  into 
an  imaginative  interest.     In  other  vrords,  here,  before  us,  is 
a  living  case  of  the  wonder-making  tendencies  converging 
into  a  tale  which  has  heroic,  imaginative,  or  better,  exag- 
gerative, interest,  and  finding  there  a  natural  home.     In- 
deed this  Pittongu  tale  combines    in    a    most    interesting 
fashion  the  short  aitiological  information-tale  and  the  heroic 
legend.     The  second  half  is  mostly  the  former,  and  quite 
simply  so :  the  first  half  is  quite  as  entirely  the  latter,  and 
quite  richly  so.     The  contrast  between  the  two  speaks  for 
itself.     In  the  first  half  the  suspense  of  denouement  gained 
by  meticulous  detail,  the  suggestion  of  character  and  the 
thrilling  climax— or,  in  a  word,  the  sense  for  story— im- 
mediately lift  us  into  the  realm  of  narrative  interest.     Here 
is  no  mere  answering  of  questions.     Here  is  an  adventure, 
well  told,  appealing  to    human    instincts    and   resting   its 
power  on  its  appeal  to  human  emotions.     Here  is  that  ex- 
aggeration of  the  hero's  cunning,  of  his  patience,  of  his 
power,  that  characterizes  the  emotional  art  of  the  story- 
teller.'  Here,  to  be  brief,  is  the  beginning  of  the  tale  par 
excellence,  the  real  home  of  wonder,  that  distinctive  region 
where  thrives  most  luxuriantly  the  wonder  that  is  born  of 
the  teller's  desire  to  thrill  and  the  listener's  desire  to  be 
thrilled.     And  so,  sure  enough,  there  is  also  to  be  found  m 
this  same  tale  an  expansion  of  the  explanation-element  into 
something   decidedly   like   the   wonderful.     The    ancestor- 
hero  has  an  adventure  in  procuring  his  wives.     He  has  all 
the  powers  of  the  usual  totemic  father,  and  others  in  ad- 
dition which  can  hardly  have  been  added  by  mere  chance. 
Aitiolodeally  they  are  unnecessary;  they  make  rather  for 
interest,  fo/ story.       They  are  exaggerations  that  hold  the 

5  Spencer  and  Gillen:  Northern  Tribes  of  Central  Australia,  p.  427. 


20 


wonder,  if  not  the  marvel.  His  power  of  transforming 
himself  into  a  dog  is  a  rarity  in  the  collection ;  it  is  also  a 
rarity  in  the  life  of  the  Central  Australian  to-day.  Only 
the  great  and  wonderful  magician  can  accomplish  such 
feats.  Again,  Pittongu's  power  of  throwing  the  two  lubras 
ahead  of  him  is  a  strictly  indi\'idual  touch,  and  the  very 
iteration  of  the  feat,  and  the  dwelling  upon  it,  seem  to  be 
motived  by  a  vivid  sense  of  its  present-day  impossibility. 
Then,  too,  the  mighty  extension  of  the  hero's  fall,  the  almost 
Miltonic-like  picture  of  his  giant  limbs  resting  upon  the 
country,  is  a  further  note  of  strong  exaggeration. 

Upon  these  observations,  then,  the  finger  of  emphasis 
must  be  placed  with  determination;  for  here  we  have  an 
elaboration  beyond  aitiological  "science"  into  a  sort  of 
primitive  wonder  (which  bids  fair  to  develop  into  what  may 
strictly  be  termed  marvellous),  coexisting  with  the  up- 
lifting of  the  emotion  and  imagination  of  the  aitiological 
answer  into  a  story-interest.  These  two  together  make  a 
faint  beginning  of  the  marvellous  of  literature  proper,  the 
first  stage  of  the  story-marvel.  Which  is  cause,  which  ef- 
fect, or  whether  they  may  both  be  effects  of  common  social 
and  psychological  forces,  are  subjects  for  speculation,  and 
further  inquiry.  Through  what  further  stages  they  may 
develop  on  the  road  out  from  a  religious  belief  to  an  ethical 
skepticism,  and  on  to  a  final  aesthetic  reconciliation,  and 
what  may  be  the  characteristic  changes  in  the  marvels 
themselves  during  that  evolution,  and  in  the  literary  tech- 
nique of  their  presentation, — these  are  the  questions  that 
naturally  follow.  As  the  hero-stories  develop  into  cycles, 
and  the  hero-cycles  pass  from  a  mere  jumble  into  artistic 
form  and  adornment,  as  they  are  reformed  in  a  self-con- 
scious epic  and  achieve  a  national  meaning, — what  becomes 
of  this  early  partnership  of  tale  and  marvel?  When  nar- 
rative ceases  to  be  a  re-telling  of  older  stories  and  becomes 
the  province  of  individual,  artistic  creation,  where  the  ex- 
pression of  the  author's  personality  gives  the  distinctive 
value  to  the  literary  product, — what  then  are  the  changes 


21 


which  the  partnership  endures  ?  What  others,  with  the  ex- 
pression of  mood  in  the  lyric  and  of  character  in  the  drama? 
What  new  marvels  will  be  added  to  the  old  literaiy-stock 
through  later,  individual  exaggeration  of  thought  and  ex- 
perience ;  and  how  will  these  new  marvels  be  representative 
of  another  economic  stage  of  society?  What  are  the  rela- 
tions of  history  and  marvel?  And  what  is  the  history  of 
that  obverse  of  the  marvellous,  the  satirical  marvel-story, 
such  as  Lucian's  True  History,  or  Baron  Munchausen? 
What  a  field  is  opened  out  in  the  European  Middle  Ages ! 
What  a  contrast  in  the  recurring  successions  of  creative  and 
critical  periods !  Xor  would  the  least  fascinating  aspect  of 
the  subject  lie  in  an  exploration  of  Oriental  marvel  litera- 
ture and  its  comparison  with  that  of  the  Occident. 

Even  in  this  mere  note  upon  a  big  task,  some  of  the 
more  important  results  to  be  gained  by  supplementing  Aris- 
totle's  old  criticism  of  the  prodigious  by  a  modern,  syste- 
matic research  and  literary  criticism  are  evident.  Partic- 
ularly is  one  impressed  with  the  peculiar  affinity  between  the 
marvellous  and  literature  which  at  every  point  has  made 
its  appearance.  Briefly,  in  a  word,  it  may  be  said  that  both 
are  all  compacted  of  imagination,  and  that  the  latter,  imag- 
inative literature,  offers  the  most  natural  play-s-round  to  the 
other.  It  would  be  easy  here  to  wax  philosophical  and  at- 
tempt to  raise  a  theory  upon  the  inter-relations  of  religion, 
literature  and  marvel. — a  theory  that  would  have  as  much 
bearing  upon  later  and  even  present-day  cycles  of  thought 
nnd  expression  as  upon  the  epoch  of  beginnings.  I  believe 
that  in  such  a  system  the  marvellous  would  furnish  the  con- 
necting link  or  mutual  element,  and  that  the  better  under- 
standing of  its  glamor  would  act  as  much  to  emancipate 
the  faith  of  religion  as  to  inspire  a  new,  more  spiritual,  and 
more  racial  romanticism.  The  romantic  return  would  then 
no  longer  be  to  a  pa.st  poorly  understood,  but  to  the  past 
under  the  light  of  a  consecutive  revelation  of  the  develop- 
ment of  human  aspirations  as  witnessed  in  the  historj^  of  the 
marvellous. 


§    - :  RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 

University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

University  of  California  : 

Richmond  Field  Station,  BIdg.  400  ' 

1301  South  46th  Street 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698  : 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS  [ 

To  renew  or  recharge  your  library  materials,  you  may  \ 

contact  NRLF  4  days  prior  to  due  date  at  (51 0)  642-6233 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


FEB  2  8  2008 


DD20   12M  7-06 


